Slashdot Mirror
The Trump Administration No Longer Wants Twitter To Reveal the Owner of an Anti-Trump Account (recode.net)
From a report on Recode: The Trump administration informed Twitter on Friday that it would withdraw its demand that the social media company unmask an account critical of the president -- a move that prompted Twitter to drop its lawsuit. On Thursday, Twitter revealed that U.S. customs agents filed a legal order in a bid to get the company to reveal who is behind @ALT_USCIS -- a so-called "alt-agency" account that has been taking aim at Trump, his immigration policy and the inner workings of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Yes, no, yes, no, yes, no, no, yes, no, yes, yes, no... Trump'sâ mind.
All this means is that someone didn't know how to go about it the first time. They withdraw this one, then come back with a proper request tied with a permanent gag order. Takes care of that nasty little law suit, and they will still get what they want.
This sig intentionally left blank.
Not a huge fan of Obama either, but i can't really picturing him *caring* what some random person on twitter had to say about his policies.
That's Trump though, massively rich and successful businessman, and now the leader of the US; but his ego demands retaliation for any perceived slight. You'd think at some point getting upset over what randoms on the internet have to say would be a bit like getting your feelings hurt over a dog barking at you.
Alphabet Inc. owns Google, not Twitter.
Unless the Twitter account used a gmail account to open it, I don't see how Alphabet intelligence would be able to help.
What do you think about the Republicans calling what was essentially their own ACA 'Obamacare' for 8 years and training their base to hate it?
This is a milder version of that. It's just a reminder that the guy who thinks he's running it all (which no president can actually do) is officially responsible.
He's going to drain the swamp, he's going to shake things up, he's going to stick it to the 1%ers, right?
Well, it's his show. Regardless of whether or not he has actual authority, Trump has claimed responsibility and the media's running with it... probably because they mostly don't align with him politically.
To be fair, Trump has not staffed something like two thirds of the non-cabinet positions he's supposed to appoint (as well as making noises that he's probably not going to either.) One of his principal advisers, Bannon, is also on record about their desire to severely shrink gov and retain more control at the executive level (Kushner's massive portfolio is a good example of this.) So, unlike the more diffuse administrations of the past, control and command is very much vested in the White House, and therefore, Trump himself.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
1) Doesnt qualify him to be president 2) He has also ruined many businesses... Also doesnt qualify him to be president 3) Only because America is full of idiots 4) Probably not a qualification for president...? 5) He has been married 3 times so far. That to me says that he is not that great at family stuff. Me: 1) Not a billionaire, but I work for the government. So I live comfortably and dont do shit. 2) 1 successful business venture that I gave up so I could stop doing shit. 3) would never want that job 4) 9 is multiple, so Im doing OK. 5) medium sized family with only 1 marriage. All happy and loving life. Id rather be me to be honest.
It's a bit of a stretch to call him a "successful" businessman. His record is mixed, and in a way I respect that.
His father set him up in NYC real estate in the 1970s, staking him 40 million -- the equivalent of about two hundred million today. You'd have to be a fool not parlay that into a billion by 2000, because you could do that by playing it safe putting your money in conservative, diversified portfolio.
But here's the part I respect: Trump didn't play it safe. He invested in things he loved -- like golf courses and casinos. If it were me I'd have put the money into science and tech companies, because that's what I love, but either way investing for love isn't very sound financially, and Trump needed his father to bail him out at least one point.
It's clear that Trump's career motivation has been to leave his mark on the world, and because he's not a very imaginative man he set out to do that literally. And that thirst for recogntion not surprising, given the fact that in the Trump family succession, Donald was the spare. His older brother Fred Jr. was suppose to inherit the business empire, but he was a drunk.
So the need for approval and love is hardly incongruous with Trump's background. And that need is an asset for a politician; with it he can make a genuine emotional connection with crowds of strangers; without it he comes across as aloof and phony. But Trump's need for approval is altogether too malignant for comfort.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
good luck with that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I *lived* with a BPD for a decade before I successfully extricated myself from that disaster area.
Trump displays so many hallmarks of this that I actually get mild anxiety attacks from watching him.
There is *no* timing the cycles of "up on a pedestal" to demonization and back... none.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
This flagrant attempt to abuse executive powers for political purposes provides the perfect opportunity for a high-profile congressional investigation. Whoever gave the order to send this summons to Twitter should be fired at the very least. If it was Trump himself (who else could it be, really?) then get the impeachment ball rolling!
One's behavior being understandable doesn't excuse it.
This is explainable as lack of thought. He felt he needed to react, but like many people he didn't think the consequences through. He's a profoundly ignorant man. Obama, although not shy about using military force, in absence of Congressional authorization attempted to use diplomacy in Syria to discourage use of chemical weapons. Clinton would simply have used force to deny Syria the use of the air assets it needs to deliver chemical weapons. Trump split the difference and ended up with an approach that has the disadvantages of both and the advantages of neither. It's a dramatic but morally timid approach that fits well with his narcissistic personality.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.